[Quote No.30242] Need Area: Friends > General "...the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e. to protect men [and women] from those who initiate the use of physical force. [Therefore I reject]...any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism...also...the current ‘mixed economy’ notion that government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth." - Ayn Rand(1905 – 1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, Russian-born American novelist, playwright, screenwriter and philosopher. She developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, which among other things advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30361] Need Area: Friends > General "Today's Daily Reckoning [- Australia] is largely about the growing tension between individual liberty and the coercive power of governments...
we believe politics and government are fair game for a financial newsletter. How you get and keep money depends on the kind of government you have and how much legal protection you have from government power...
[Why are we concerned? Because it sounds like the current] financial crisis is being used at the excuse for an enormous push toward more integration of government at the international level. One world government, you might say.
This is the most serious campaign against individual liberty in a long time. And it's just getting started. The Statists of the world (both Left and Right) will be dusting off all their favourite plans for more expansions of government power into commerce and private life. We feel compelled to mention it today because in their moral righteousness and fervour, the advocates of this huge expansion are not bothering to hide their real objectives, their motives, or their methods.
The objective? Bigger, more intrusive government. The motive? Moral righteousness that people smarter than you know better what you should do with your money and your life. The method? Coercion, both through taxation and suppression of individual action (thought, expression, movement).
Which brings us to Australia. A few readers have written to ask if we are aware of the internet censorship legislation being proposed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Yes, we are...
[We should all know that] there is no protection of freedom of speech at the Commonwealth level in Australia; at least none that we're aware of. According to a June 2002 research note by the Parliamentary Library in Canberra, Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), passed by the U.N. in 1948.
Article 19th of the UDHR affirms that, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'
No specific Act of [the Australian] Parliament has been passed at the Commonwealth level to incorporate this article into Australian law and 'no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.'...
In early 2006, [the State of] Victoria passed a kind of Bill of Rights called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities which DOES include freedom of expression (see page 15). You should also note that Victoria's Act isn't like a Constitutional right to free expression. It says the right of free expression, 'may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary,' such as 'for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.'
The Australian Capital Territory passed its own Bill of Rights in 2004. Its language does not suggest that freedom of expression is proscribed by any limits at all. On page 13 it states, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of borders, whether orally, in writing or in print, by way of art, or in another way chosen by him or her.'
Maybe it's time the Commonwealth of Australia had a Bill of Rights. From our early investigations, we see that the subject has been debated on and off throughout Australian history. Maybe it's time for a new debate.
The big advantage of having constitutional protection for freedom of expression is that it stands over and above common law. Public tastes and morality change with the times, and common law generally reflects these gradual changes in tastes. But certain rights ought not to be subject to the passing whims of legislators. There are very few such rights, but that's why they are enshrined and protected in a Bill of Rights.
Constitutions and Bills of Rights do not exist to spell out what the government allows you to do as a private individual. They are not lists of legal and illegal private behaviour. Just the opposite in fact.
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights describe the precise limits of Federal power. They do not list what you and I can or cannot do. But they do specify acts which the government must almost always refrain from doing. They exist to define and limit government power, not to define and circumscribe individual liberty.
Most people forget that these days because they are used to being bossed around by the government at all levels. But Bills of Rights generally prevent the government from telling people how to worship, what they can or cannot say, and who they can or cannot assemble with in public. In the U.S., it also includes the right to bear arms.
To the extent that the Bill of Rights describes what the government can do, it's usually things the government HAS to do once it's already infringed on individual liberty. This includes a trial by jury, right to confront accusers, and the right to counsel. But these again are designed to guarantee the private individual's rights are respected by the government...
Why the long digression into liberties, rights, and law? It seems like a timely subject these days. So many things that are described as 'rights' by legislators are not rights at all, in the strictly legal sense. They are morally and politically desirable outcomes. But the government has no legal responsibility or authority to guarantee those outcomes through coercion...
[Individual Australian voters need to consider carefully what their rights really are and whether they want to be treated like competent] adults and free people, instead of children who must be protected from themselves and the world at large." - Dan DenningEditor of the financial newsletter, 'The Daily Reckoning - Australia'. Quote from Tuesday, 11 November 2008.Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30362] Need Area: Friends > General "In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States.
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or 'infamous crime', guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that 'the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,' and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215)." - Wikipedia.orgthe free encyclopediaAuthor's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30373] Need Area: Friends > General "Libertarians [as in all philosophies come in many shades, but in general they] are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty [freedom], understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty. [A subset of libertarianism is Minarchism, which is the belief that a state should exist but that its functions should be minimal because its sole purpose is protecting the rights of the people, including protecting people and their property from the criminal acts of others, as well as providing for national defense. The famous economist, Milton Friedman, was a prominent minarchist. The famous economist, Adam Smith, and the politicians, Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, believed in classical liberalism that also supports state intervention of infrastructure. For example, they built railroads, canals, central banks and macroeconomic regulatory infrastructure.]" - Matt ZwolinskiFrom the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved on 9 August 2008.Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30374] Need Area: Friends > General "Libertarian Heroes:
The classical liberal/libertarian political heritage is full of intelligent and passionate defenders of individual liberty, justice and equal rights for all. It’s not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all those who have contributed to the philosophy of liberty, but below are some of the most influential thinkers and writers.
--1-Adam Smith: A Professor of Moral Philosophy, Adam Smith was one of the founding fathers of economics. His most famous work, 'The Wealth of Nations', contains an impassioned argument for the benefits of free trade and the social value of competitive forces most illuminatingly conceived in his metaphor of the invisible hand. It also contains a critique of monopolies and business collusion and a cautious outline of the proper limits and scope of government. Critics of Smith who argue that his view of human nature is flawed have frequently neither read this work carefully, or its essential accompaniment, his 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'.
--2-Ayn Rand: A Russian Jewish immigrant to the US, Rand lived through anti-semitism in the Tsarist era followed by the oppressive Bolshevik regime, giving her a genuine awareness of the evils of anti-individualist philosophies which would judge the worth of a person on the basis of tribalistic affiliations, whether from the Left or Right. She went on to write two influential novels, 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' followed by a series of anthologies of essays outlining the tenets of her individualist and Enlightenment-influenced thought. Though she did not outline her thought in a systematic treatise, an integrated system of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics and political theory can be extrapolated from it.
--3-Milton Friedman: Nobel prize winning economist and intellectually sharp polemicist for the classical liberal cause, Friedman has been an advocate of many pioneering policies. In the US he has been a consistent and long running critic of the War on Drugs, military conscription,and macroeconomic fine tuning. He has also been known as an advocate of education vouchers to introduce competition into the education sector and a ‘negative income tax’ for the working poor to replace the costly apparatus of the welfare state and obviate the need for employment-destroying labour market regulation.
--4-Friedrich Hayek: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Economics, Hayek was noted for his pioneering technical work in the theory of capital and trade cycles. However he later focused his substantial intellectual gifts on economic methodology, political philosophy, social theory, intellectual history and jurisprudence. His two important essays ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’ and ‘Economics and Knowledge’ outline a research paradigm in economic theory based around the market process and information transmission, the full implications of which are still being explored today. His theory of polycentric law, outlined in 'Law, Legislation and Liberty', forms the basis for much libertarian social thought." - Australian Libertarian SocietyQuoted from the website of the Australian Libertarian Society - Defending life, liberty and property.Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30427] Need Area: Friends > General "From what we can gather, the worry about a Bill of Rights is that it becomes a specific list of things which you as a citizen may not do. Or worse, it becomes a laundry list of so-called rights the government extends to special interest groups. It becomes a list of particular laws rather than general principles.
--That doesn't sound like a Bill of Rights we'd want either. But then, as we understand it, a Bill of Rights is a very general list of negative rights. Negative rights specify what the government is NOT permitted to do. Positive rights, like the ones a lot of readers seem to hear, specify what YOU are permitted to do.
--You'd want a Bill of Rights that negates the government's power to make laws to tell you what you can and can't do. The whole point is to remove critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of the press from courtrooms and legislatures and put them, in a constitutional sense, above judicial or legislative deliberation. The government can't touch them because they are off legal limits.
--Of course other countries have had Bills of Rights that didn't succeed at all in guaranteeing liberty. Weimar Germany is a great example. But if you'll forgive us for being a barbaric American, we'd suggest that one reason these Bills of Rights didn't help in the practical defence of liberty is that they did not include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
--The founders realised that having rights-freedom of speech, of the press, or religion-was no good if you didn't also have the right to defend yourself from people who would deprive you of those right unjustly, including the government. What good is it having rights that can't be taken away if you aren't able to defend yourself from people who want to take them away?
--Of course in a civilised and free society, a man wouldn't generally have to worry about the State's monopoly on violence infringing on his rights. None of us spend much time defending our rights to worship and speak freely because we enjoy them without challenge. For now.
--Keep in mind the second amendment to the U.S. constitution-which clarifies that a man has the natural right to defend himself with arms-has its origin in British common law and not the violence of the American frontier, as is often suggested by people opposed to self-defence.
--The 1689 English Declaration of Rights recognised the right of British people (although only Protestants) to bear arms in their own defence. A similar right to bear arms was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives by James Madison with two big changes. One, it applied to everyone, not just Protestants. And two, it was not an Act of Parliament but an amendment to the Constitution.
--That means it was not a right that could simply be taken away by a future Act of Parliament. To modify or eliminate a Constitutional right requires a specific and fairly difficult process. But remember, we're not talking about 'rights' like health care, education, or other socially desirable outcomes.
--Parliaments of elected men and women are free to pursue those policies inasmuch as they represent what people want their government to do with their tax dollars. That's consensual government, after all. But a clearly defined bill of negative rights simply tells the government what it cannot do with respect to individual liberty. That seems pretty handy." - Dan DenningEditor of 'The Daily Reckoning - Australia', published 13 November 2008.Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30432] Need Area: Friends > General "[Ever wondered if government can be trusted to tell you the truth? Well, here's an example of how government 'spin' turns black to white:] ..., a professional genealogical researcher, discovered a certain high profile U.S. politician's [relative]... was convicted of horse stealing and train robbery and went to prison. He later escaped and continued robbing trains in the late 1800's. After being caught by ... detectives, he was convicted and hanged. The researcher e-mailed the politician's staff and they sent back the following biographical sketch [which shows just how 'good' government has become at 'spinning' the truth]: '[He] was a famous cowboy in the ...[area]. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the ... railroad. Beginning in ..., he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In ..., he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned ... Detective Agency. In ..., [he] passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'" - Seymour@imagi-natives.comThe details of the politician in question have been edited out of the above quote, as the point is about 'spin', not the politician, who has and will undoubtably continue to make valuable contributions to politics in the future.Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30464] Need Area: Friends > General "Today, those who subscribe to the principles of... individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law -- call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We [at the Cato Institute] see problems with all of those terms. 'Conservative' smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
'Classical liberal' is a bit closer to the mark, but the word 'classical' connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
Finally, 'liberal' may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's [the Cato Institute] work has increasingly come to be called 'libertarianism' or 'market liberalism.' It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today [and the 'inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness']. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, China, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of [oppressed people including] blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world." - The Cato InstituteThe Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit tax-exempt public policy research and educational foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. which accepts no government funding. The Institute is named for 'Cato's Letters', a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution [They were authored by British writers John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon and first published from 1720 to 1723 under the pseudonym of Cato, (95-46 BC), who was the implacable foe of Julius Caesar and a famously stubborn champion of republican principles. He was known as Cato the Younger (Cato Minor) to distinguish him from his great-grandfather (Cato the Elder). It is estimated that half the private libraries in the American colonies held bound volumes of 'Cato's Letters' on their shelves.] The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world. The Cato Institute undertakes an extensive publications program dealing with the complete spectrum of public policy issues. Books, monographs, briefing papers and shorter studies are commissioned to examine issues in nearly every corner of the public policy debate. Policy forums and book forums are held regularly, as are major policy conferences, which Cato hosts throughout the year, and from which papers are published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal. All of these events are taped and archived on Cato's Web site. Additionally, Cato has held major conferences in London, Moscow, Shanghai, and Mexico City. The Institute also publishes the quarterly magazine Regulation and a bimonthly newsletter, Cato Policy Report [as well as a free newsletter, a blog and the website www.cato.org]. The above quote was downloaded from their website on the 19th November, 2008.Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30489] Need Area: Friends > General "[A true story - with a message: While the law is a very important part of an orderly, just society, the people most knowledgeable about the law who should know better, sometimes use that to their advantage by exploiting loop-holes to stay within the letter but outside the spirit and original intent of the law and commonsense morality. Sometimes other legal experts can correct the wrong as in the following true story!]
A lawyer [in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA] purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire.
Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires.'
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued.. and WON!
(Stay with me.)
Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be 'unacceptable fire' and was obligated to pay the claim!
Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the 'fires'.
(NOW, FOR THE BEST PART)
After the lawyer cashed the cheque, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!
With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine." - UnknownAuthor's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image